How to control healthcare costs in the United States

[sv3n 0]

When you start a world health organization to monitor and rank healthcare around the world, then I'll take what you have to say on the subject seriously.

According to research done by the World Health Organization France was ranked number 1........if you choose to ignore it that's your problem. Personally it doesn't really seem like they're too far off on the goals of healthcare for everybody, they might not fit in well in a system designed to not cover everybody......but that's not what I believe it right.

As far as the higher insurance rate and doctor salaries...........I haven't ignored them. Insurance wouldn't be an issue. If you have a government run healthcare there wouldn't be insurance..........it would be through the government. Regulating healthcare costs obviously would include salaries of people in the healthcare profession. Now before you get your panties in a bunch......I'm not saying have doctors and nurses make $2 per hour. I'm saying fair wages regulated by a panel of doctors and budget officials...............that way the doctor's are represented and the people planning the budget are there to make sure things are fair. This is all stuff I stated before.........it just doesn't seem like you're listening.

No, can't say that I've lived in France......been there a couple of times, but never lived there. You ever live there? I'm assuming no. So by your argument, I have a report by the World Health Organization that I'm following and you are following no report by anybody......just simply "I can't believe it, it can't be true". Nice, did you want some earplugs so you can free up your fingers?

I'm not sure where you get this $2/hour junk..........over exaggerating stuff isn't great for debates...........usually it proves that you have no argument.

And finally............hey you said it was a silly childish idea for the government to promote healthy living...........that's a report for the President's Cancer Panel (like the president of the us of a), obviously it wasn't that silly or childish...........they must have some sort of authority on the subject. I didn't write the article..............just showing you it isn't some sort of wild fantasy idea. If you have problems with the report, then take it up with the President's Cancer Panel. Show 'em who's the boss tiger.

I don't think I can put it any more plain than that.........peace out. Good luck with your quest........watch out for that tree.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[rushmc 18]

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sv3n 0]

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

Very simplified, the rating put quantity ahead of quality and placed universal or "free", (so to speak) access as its 1 priority. Basicly, the closer to socialistic operation the higher the ranking

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

I think you mis interpeted this post. I think the US has screwed things up so bad it has moved itself to a ranking of 37. To make it right (fix it) the US would move lower in the ranking. In other words, the lower the ranking in this study the better

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

I think you mis interpeted this post. I think the US has screwed things up so bad it has moved itself to a ranking of 37. To make it right (fix it) the US would move lower in the ranking. In other words, the lower the ranking in this study the better

Interesting thought. What changes would you suggest to fix the problem and how would that lower the score?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

Very simplified, the rating put quantity ahead of quality and placed universal or "free", (so to speak) access as its 1 priority. Basicly, the closer to socialistic operation the higher the ranking

Could that be determining wether a government is running it's healthcare program efficiently and making is accessible to the entire population?

...and you're in violation of your face!

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

Very simplified, the rating put quantity ahead of quality and placed universal or "free", (so to speak) access as its 1 priority. Basicly, the closer to socialistic operation the higher the ranking

WHO wouldn't do something like that



-

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

I think you mis interpeted this post. I think the US has screwed things up so bad it has moved itself to a ranking of 37. To make it right (fix it) the US would move lower in the ranking. In other words, the lower the ranking in this study the better

Interesting thought. What changes would you suggest to fix the problem and how would that lower the score?

I am not sure what you think needs fixed but I can suggest 3 things that would help to lower the cost.

First, pass a federal law that stops states from mandating what has to be insured. The hodge podge of differing laws do not allow insurance compaines to consolidate for large groups of people driving up the cost. Not to mention stupid laws that say insurance must cover breast implants and adadictome"s.

Second, tort reform. Limits do not have to be set but Looser pay states have seen large decreases in cases. You loose the case, you pay the other lawyer. That would help stop many ambulanc chasers.

Third, health saving accounts. Need to go, pay for it out of your account. don't have to go the money stays with you to help you buy (then now less costly) health insurance at retirement.


....to name the top three

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

I think you mis interpeted this post. I think the US has screwed things up so bad it has moved itself to a ranking of 37. To make it right (fix it) the US would move lower in the ranking. In other words, the lower the ranking in this study the better

Interesting thought. What changes would you suggest to fix the problem and how would that lower the score?

I am not sure what you think needs fixed but I can suggest 3 things that would help to lower the cost.

First, pass a federal law that stops states from mandating what has to be insured. The hodge podge of differing laws do not allow insurance compaines to consolidate for large groups of people driving up the cost. Not to mention stupid laws that say insurance must cover breast implants and adadictome"s.

Second, tort reform. Limits do not have to be set but Looser pay states have seen large decreases in cases. You loose the case, you pay the other lawyer. That would help stop many ambulanc chasers.

Third, health saving accounts. Need to go, pay for it out of your account. don't have to go the money stays with you to help you buy (then now less costly) health insurance at retirement.


....to name the top three

I can't say I disagree with you on 1 and 2........they need a national standard so the same laws are in affect for everybody. And the "loser pays court costs and lawyer fees", that's an awesome idea........i think it's way under enforced. Anytime you get sued, if the person can't prove or has no case they should be responsible for the court and lawyer fees.

3, the health savings account............I'm not sure on this one. Just because if you have a low income due to social status, education, so on and so on........you're not really covered. You only make so much, you can only afford so much. It would essentially say that the rich can afford good healthcare while joe schmoe down at the gas station would be screwed if he got really sick with something like cancer. But there's gotta be some way around that.

Good ideas.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[sv3n 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

Very simplified, the rating put quantity ahead of quality and placed universal or "free", (so to speak) access as its 1 priority. Basicly, the closer to socialistic operation the higher the ranking

WHO wouldn't do something like that

-

only if they were spontaneously combusting

...and you're in violation of your face!

[1969912 0]

Quote

I'm not sure where you get this $2/hour junk..........over exaggerating stuff isn't great for debates...........usually it proves that you have no argument.

He's not exaggerating, sorta. What you have in mind is something that economically is destined to fail. It will eventually totally fuck up the system. Artificially manipulating the market has driven the HC systems of Canada, Germany, France, and others to near ruin. Read that good link I posted. The 2$ thing probably refers to the fact that somebody is going to remove competition and tell you, Dr.sv3n, that you will only get X, when your fair market value, as well as what you have previously been earning is 3X or 2X, whatever. And in reality, it could be 2$/hr. Who knows? You are talking about seriously screwing with the market, which means anything goes. So you had better be comfortable with that, and be comfortable telling someone else that. You're gonna say "it will be fair", but what is fair? I guarantee that what you think is fair is not what someone else thinks. BTW, what you are talking about will never happen here. If it ever did, you might see the real reason the 2nd Amendment was put in place; it ain't for hunting ducks.

Based on george's screen name and some of the stuff he's said, he probably knows a hell of a lot about what it's like to live in France. He might also know what it's like to have someone tell you what your skills, education, intellect, etc. are worth, no matter how good you are at your job. No matter how hard you work.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

Me and sv3n went over all that stuff last week didn't we? Maybe you didn't see the posts. I guess it doesn't really matter. I don't give a shit how they ranked us anyway, they're commies, most of us are not. one thing's for sure though, anyone who wants SHC in their country will not like the way you or I or Glenn Beck think about what is important.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

As far as the higher insurance rate and doctor salaries...........I haven't ignored them. Insurance wouldn't be an issue. If you have a government run healthcare there wouldn't be insurance....

Whaddaya mean there will be no insurance? Someone has to dole out and manage the money. It may be the government, but it still needs to be paid for.



Even after that there will be insurance. What % of french citizens do you think go out and buy their own supplemental insurance because THE WORLD'S BEST HEALTHCARE SYSTEM doesn't pay enough to cover the bills? Done guessing? It's about 85%. They buy it with $ out of their own pockets. Want that to be "free" too, well then tax their ass even more than you already do. You really need to do a little research on this crap. Seeing the #1 ranking without doing any further research won't cut it. If you really want the truth you need to talk to some people in France.


http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/bb2France.php

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

Very simplified, the rating put quantity ahead of quality and placed universal or "free", (so to speak) access as its 1 priority. Basicly, the closer to socialistic operation the higher the ranking

Not really #1, it just has 25% weighting (max allowed), along with 2 others.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

I think you mis interpeted this post. I think the US has screwed things up so bad it has moved itself to a ranking of 37. To make it right (fix it) the US would move lower in the ranking. In other words, the lower the ranking in this study the better

He was probably making a joke about it being a study designed by commies, in other words, if the pinko's say #1 is best, you better run for #191. The test isn't biased that badly though. Removing that "fairness" test moves Fr to 6th and US to 15th or so. I posted that a few days back. The only value in doing that is to show people that we realy don't suck all that bad as it is.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

I think you mis interpeted this post. I think the US has screwed things up so bad it has moved itself to a ranking of 37. To make it right (fix it) the US would move lower in the ranking. In other words, the lower the ranking in this study the better

The US system is not all that screwed up. You want to see screwed up, wait till they put in SHC, and fiddle with the market for 10-20 years.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

When you start a world health organization to monitor and rank healthcare around the world, then I'll take what you have to say on the subject seriously.

If there might be the worst reason to create the world health organization, this must be the one you just mentioned :D

Quote

According to research done by the World Health Organization France was ranked number 1........if you choose to ignore it that's your problem.

Well, if you decide to ignore everything said about it, and prefer just to repeat the same meaningless quote again ang again - it's up to you.

There would be nice to have an ignore list.

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

No one should be denied medical care or receive sub-standard care. I don't have the answer, but there needs to be some way that the working poor, that are making barely enough to pay childcare and housing costs, can have decent medical care.

Are people denied care? Go to your local emergency room and you'll get your answer. People using the ER for non-emergent care and not paying (which the hospital then passes on to everyone else) is a large part of the problem, IMO.

Does healthcare need some sort of overhaul? Yes, in my opinion. Refusing to treat non-emergent people and sending them to a local doctor or clinic would go a long way towards reducing overall costs and easing the burden on the healthcare system.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[1969912 0]

Things to consider:

For all its problems, the United States still provides the highest-quality health care in the world. 18 of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine either are U.S. citizens or work here. With no price controls, free-market U.S. medicine provides the incentives that lead to innovation breakthroughs in new drugs and other medical technologies.

U.S. companies have developed half of all the major new medicines introduced worldwide over the past 20 years, and according to a survey by the president's Council of Economic Advisors, Americans have played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the past 30 years.

....47 million Americans without health insurance but fails to point out that most of those are uninsured for only brief periods or that millions are already eligible for government programs but fail to apply. Moreover, he implies that people without health insurance don't receive health care.

In reality, most do. Hospitals are legally obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay, and while physicians do not face the same legal requirements, few are willing to deny treatment because a patient lacks insurance. Treatment for the uninsured may well mean financial hardship, but by and large they do receive it.


---------------
Michael Tanner is director of health and welfare studies at the Cato Institute and coauthor of Healthy Competition: What's Holding Back Health Care and How to Free It (2005).

Michael Moore's new movie, Sicko, premieres at the Uptown Theater in Washington today and can be expected to generate a frenzy of media excitement. With presidential candidates already falling all over themselves to offer proposals for universal health care, Moore's powerful indictment of the American health care system will almost certainly add to the debate.

But serious advocates of health care reform would be advised against relying too heavily on Moore's view.

Moore ignores the positive side altogether. For all its problems, the United States still provides the highest-quality health care in the world. 18 of the last 25 winners of the Nobel Prize in Medicine either are U.S. citizens or work here. With no price controls, free-market U.S. medicine provides the incentives that lead to innovation breakthroughs in new drugs and other medical technologies.

U.S. companies have developed half of all the major new medicines introduced worldwide over the past 20 years, and according to a survey by the president's Council of Economic Advisors, Americans have played a key role in 80 percent of the most important medical advances of the past 30 years.

Instead, Moore focuses on life expectancy, suggesting that people in Canada, Britain, France and even Cuba live longer than Americans because of their health care systems. But most experts agree that life expectancies are a poor measure of health care, because they are affected by too many exogenous factors like violent crime, poverty, obesity, tobacco and drug use, and other issues unrelated to a country's health system. When you compare the outcome for specific diseases such as cancer or heart disease, the United States clearly outperforms the rest of the world.

Take prostate cancer, for example. Though American men are more likely to be diagnosed with prostate cancer than men in other countries, we are less likely to die of it. Fewer than one in five American men with prostate cancer will die from it, but a quarter of Canadian men will, and even more ominously, 57 percent of British men and nearly half of French and German men will.

Similar results can be found for other cancers, AIDS and heart disease. When former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi needed heart surgery last year, he didn't go to France, Canada, Cuba or even an Italian hospital — he went to the Cleveland Clinic.

As one would expect, Moore refers frequently to the 47 million Americans without health insurance but fails to point out that most of those are uninsured for only brief periods or that millions are already eligible for government programs but fail to apply. Moreover, he implies that people without health insurance don't receive health care.

In reality, most do. Hospitals are legally obligated to provide care regardless of ability to pay, and while physicians do not face the same legal requirements, few are willing to deny treatment because a patient lacks insurance. Treatment for the uninsured may well mean financial hardship, but by and large they do receive it.

And Moore overlooks the flaws of national health care systems. He downplays waiting lists in Canada, suggesting they are no more than inconveniences. He interviews apparently healthy Canadians who claim they have no problem getting care. Somehow, he couldn't find any of the nearly 800,000 Canadians who are not so lucky.

Nor apparently did he have time to interview Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin, who wrote in a 2005 decision striking down part of Canada's universal care law that many Canadians waiting for treatment suffer chronic pain and "patients die while on the waiting list."

Similarly, in a truly funny sequence, Moore struggles to find the payment window at a British hospital. But it might not have been so funny if he talked to any of the 850,000 Britons waiting for admission to those hospitals.

Every year, shortages force the British National Health Service to cancel as many as 50,000 operations. Roughly 40 percent of cancer patients never get to see an oncology specialist. Delays in receiving treatment are often so long that nearly 20 percent of colon cancer cases considered treatable when first diagnosed are incurable by the time treatment is finally offered.

The American health care system clearly needs reform. But it would be a shame if Moore's latest piece of propaganda stampedes Americans into sacrificing the quality, choice and freedom that our health care system provides today.

This article appeared on Examiner.com on June 18, 2007.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8336

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[DFWAJG 4]

Someone may have posted this already, but I really didn't feel like reading all 13 pages of posts. Wow lawrocket, you created quite a discussion. But here's an idea: PREVENTION. Prevention can and if followed will save you money in the end and save healthcare in general. The three top reasons why people are hospitalized are
1. complications due to smoking (heart disease, stroke, asthma, copd, lung cancer, hypertension, etc)
2. complications due to obesity (heart disease, stroke, hypertension, diabetes, knee replacements, broken bones, etc)
3. complications due to alcoholism/other illicit substances(liver disease, hepatitis, HIV/AIDS, portal hypertension, heart disease, stroke, cancers, motor vehicle accidents, home accidents)

by eliminating these three chief problems, not smoking, not putting crap food into your body, not abusing alcohol and drugs, you will put most doctors and nearly all hospitals out of business. I once had a pulmonologist say that he loves smokers. They paid for his student loans, paid for his house and put his kids through college. He of course was being cheeky. but truth-be-told. If you don't have a need for a business, the business goes sour.

We are constantly trying to FIX something. Let's try to focus on PREVENTION. Take away Coke machines at schools. Serve nourishing meals at schools. Implement daily gym at schools and assign gym homework! (remember that commercial anyone?) Stop locking up addicts and give them treatment to keep them clean. REcognize and treat mental illness early (the majority of alcoholics have a diagnosis of 1. antisocial personality disorder, 2, bipolar I disorder, 3. bipolar II disorder)

Look at it this way: VAccines. Vaccines have eradicated smallpox, and nearly eradicated polio. the invention of a vaccine for the rotavirus and RSV have closed pediatric wards. VAccines are PREVENTION. And they are saving a butt load of money. Do I have the stats for $ spent on vaccines vs. hospitalization for an illness? No. but do I really need to have that or do you think it is safe to say that one shot vs the cost of upkeep and maintainance of a hospital, doctors fees, malpractice, etc. for each person..(I think they'll be a savings..maybe just a little bit)

So by the Vaccine Example of PREVENTION, I think you may all agree that the best way to keep healthcare healthy is to keep ourselves healthy.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Someone may have posted this already, but I really didn't feel like reading all 13 pages of posts. Wow lawrocket, you created quite a discussion. But here's an idea: PREVENTION. Prevention can and if followed will save you money in the end and save healthcare in general.

You've got to be kidding, right? We as a society have a right to do as we please and enjoy life, consequences be damned. Then when our health goes down the tubes, we simply blame someone else and let them pick up the bill.[sarcasm intended]

[sv3n 0]

That's right we did..........someone was a little bored last night.

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

Me and sv3n went over all that stuff last week didn't we? Maybe you didn't see the posts. I guess it doesn't really matter. I don't give a shit how they ranked us anyway, they're commies, most of us are not. one thing's for sure though, anyone who wants SHC in their country will not like the way you or I or Glenn Beck think about what is important.

...and you're in violation of your face!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

Me and sv3n went over all that stuff last week didn't we? Maybe you didn't see the posts. I guess it doesn't really matter. I don't give a shit how they ranked us anyway, they're commies, most of us are not. one thing's for sure though, anyone who wants SHC in their country will not like the way you or I or Glenn Beck think about what is important.

I have been bouncing in and out of this thread and yes, I did see your evaluation of how the ratings were done. (Nicely done by the way) It was just interesting to here it come from someplace else. You are also right about, the the UN or the WHO likes it, I want nothing to do with it

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I just learned more about the "standards" used by the WHO to find the rankings. And as Glen Beck said. I have only one problem with the US rating. It is too damed high. It really should be closer to 100. Then I feel we would be on a better track

I'm glad you feel that way, but what did you find out?

I think you mis interpeted this post. I think the US has screwed things up so bad it has moved itself to a ranking of 37. To make it right (fix it) the US would move lower in the ranking. In other words, the lower the ranking in this study the better

The US system is not all that screwed up. You want to see screwed up, wait till they put in SHC, and fiddle with the market for 10-20 years.

Again, I agree. My only point was I wish in the WHO ranking the US was 100 or lower

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln